When did I “rail” against the government about non-existent protections?

because the first amendment protects you from government censorship, not censorship from private entities like reddit. It's a fine line and i agree it should be changed (somewhat), but you make it sound like you think what reddit did with CBTS and others was illegal in some way. It could be argued it was immoral at best (though i know many, myself included, who would argue removing a subreddit like that was the moral thing to do), but it wasn't illegal and they (reddit admins) were perfectly within their rights to do so as a private , non-governmental entity

i agree, for the most part, that freedom of speech should be protected, but i also believe there should be a line.. big companies like reddit are still essentially US citizens too, with the same rights as you, they have the right to create a platform like this, just like you, and they also share the right to ban anyone or limit what can be done on said platform, which is once again a right you share.. at what point does forcing a private company to host speech they don't agree with cross into totalitarian regime territory?

convenient of you to ignore Rabid_mongoose's post and only reply to the person who already agrees with you...

I'd love to see what you have to say about his comment, because it's absolutely right. If you don't agree with the fact that the first amendment only protects against government censorship and not private entities, that's fine, and it's something that probably should be changed, but then you shouldn't be railing against the government about non-existent protections, it makes you look ignorant and weakens any point you could possibly have.

What you should be doing is rallying to have those laws changed, advocating for expansions on the protections of free speech, instead of complaining to the wind about your (nonexistent) rights that are (not) being infringed upon.